Author
Topic: Statues? (Read 7365 times)

Lately i have grown fascinated by the western rite and I was just thinking about something. Was statues used in the western church before the schism? I ask because I have seen statues in several western rite churches. Just curious.

Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

Lately i have grown fascinated by the western rite and I was just thinking about something. Was statues used in the western church before the schism? I ask because I have seen statues in several western rite churches. Just curious.

I took instruction from orthodox priest and was received in a WR orthodox church at WR Paschal Liturgy. Then

Lately i have grown fascinated by the western rite and I was just thinking about something. Was statues used in the western church before the schism? I ask because I have seen statues in several western rite churches. Just curious.

Not that much. Free-standing sculpture was pretty much a lost art in the West following the Fall of the Western Empire and didn't really come back in any usage until after the schism.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Lately i have grown fascinated by the western rite and I was just thinking about something. Was statues used in the western church before the schism? I ask because I have seen statues in several western rite churches. Just curious.

Not that much. Free-standing sculpture was pretty much a lost art in the West following the Fall of the Western Empire and didn't really come back in any usage until after the schism.

The statue of Christ graced Constantinople until 1443. Go to many OCA churches. May be semi-bas relief, but still. Have you looked at a 3 bar crucifix on a tetrapod lately?

Lately i have grown fascinated by the western rite and I was just thinking about something. Was statues used in the western church before the schism? I ask because I have seen statues in several western rite churches. Just curious.

Not that much. Free-standing sculpture was pretty much a lost art in the West following the Fall of the Western Empire and didn't really come back in any usage until after the schism.

The statue of Christ graced Constantinople until 1443. Go to many OCA churches. May be semi-bas relief, but still. Have you looked at a 3 bar crucifix on a tetrapod lately?

Bas-reliefs have always been acceptable in Orthodoxy, fully three-dimensional statues have not.

Lately i have grown fascinated by the western rite and I was just thinking about something. Was statues used in the western church before the schism? I ask because I have seen statues in several western rite churches. Just curious.

Not that much. Free-standing sculpture was pretty much a lost art in the West following the Fall of the Western Empire and didn't really come back in any usage until after the schism.

The statue of Christ graced Constantinople until 1443. Go to many OCA churches. May be semi-bas relief, but still. Have you looked at a 3 bar crucifix on a tetrapod lately?

? None of which has much to do with my answer to Ansgar. Constantinople was not part of the "West" and did not experience the same loss of Classical culture and art styles (including free-standing sculpture) that the West did in the wake of the Germanic invasions and the collapse of the Western Empire. 'bas-relief' is, by definition, not free-standing sculpture which is what I was commenting on. The early medieval West (between the Fall of Rome and the schism/rise of Romanesque art) did have free-standing, monumental crosses. They did not have free-standing sculptures of human beings.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

I do not believe they did, or if they did, none have survived, or were even worthy of note to recall (or that I recall).

The only iconographic controversy that happened in the West was the ignorant and misinformed reaction of Frankfort, when they received probably the worst and most garbled Latin translation of the Greek text of Nicea II (for example, the horrible Latin translation says that one of the Greek Bishops say we should pay latriea to the Mother of God just as we pay it to the Trinity, which is most certainly not what the original Greek acts say!).

The other would be the prohibition by the Synod in Trullo against the continue Roman use of depicting Christ as a Lamb with St. John Baptist pointing at Him.

However, the iconography found in the pre-Schism period is very beautiful. As mentioned above, you did fine relief.

Lately i have grown fascinated by the western rite and I was just thinking about something. Was statues used in the western church before the schism? I ask because I have seen statues in several western rite churches. Just curious.

Not that much. Free-standing sculpture was pretty much a lost art in the West following the Fall of the Western Empire and didn't really come back in any usage until after the schism.

The statue of Christ graced Constantinople until 1443. Go to many OCA churches. May be semi-bas relief, but still. Have you looked at a 3 bar crucifix on a tetrapod lately?

? None of which has much to do with my answer to Ansgar. Constantinople was not part of the "West" and did not experience the same loss of Classical culture and art styles (including free-standing sculpture) that the West did in the wake of the Germanic invasions and the collapse of the Western Empire. 'bas-relief' is, by definition, not free-standing sculpture which is what I was commenting on. The early medieval West (between the Fall of Rome and the schism/rise of Romanesque art) did have free-standing, monumental crosses. They did not have free-standing sculptures of human beings.

lol. Good point. I have no idea how I missed "the west." Well, hope it was good for a laugh.

Lately i have grown fascinated by the western rite and I was just thinking about something. Was statues used in the western church before the schism? I ask because I have seen statues in several western rite churches. Just curious.

Not that much. Free-standing sculpture was pretty much a lost art in the West following the Fall of the Western Empire and didn't really come back in any usage until after the schism.

The statue of Christ graced Constantinople until 1443. Go to many OCA churches. May be semi-bas relief, but still. Have you looked at a 3 bar crucifix on a tetrapod lately?

Bas-reliefs have always been acceptable in Orthodoxy, fully three-dimensional statues have not.

You mean inside the churches, right? Why would it be wrong to have statues provided the fact that they are not used liturgically?

Lately i have grown fascinated by the western rite and I was just thinking about something. Was statues used in the western church before the schism? I ask because I have seen statues in several western rite churches. Just curious.

Not that much. Free-standing sculpture was pretty much a lost art in the West following the Fall of the Western Empire and didn't really come back in any usage until after the schism.

The statue of Christ graced Constantinople until 1443. Go to many OCA churches. May be semi-bas relief, but still. Have you looked at a 3 bar crucifix on a tetrapod lately?

Bas-reliefs have always been acceptable in Orthodoxy, fully three-dimensional statues have not.

You mean inside the churches, right? Why would it be wrong to have statues provided the fact that they are not used liturgically?

"What other innovations have they [the Latins] introduced contrary to the tradition of the church?Whereas the holy icons have been piously established in honour of their divine prototypes and for their relative worship by the faithful... and they instruct us pictorially by means of colours and other material (which serve as a kind of alphabet) - these men, who subvert everything, as has been said, often confect holy images in a different manner and one that is contrary to custom. For instead of painted garments and hair, they adorn them with human hair and clothes which is not the image of hair and of a garment, but the [actual] hair and garment of a man, and hence is not an image and symbol of the prototype. These they confect and adorn in an irrelevant spirit, which is indeed opposed to holy icons.

Symeon of Thessaloniki, Contra Haereses (Against Heresies)"

This is the beginning of Chapter 13, "The migrating Image: Uses and abuses of Byzantine icons in Western Europe" (Barbara Zeitler) of the book "Icon and Word: the Power of Images in Byzantium" (Antony Eastmond)

These are elucidating accounts little known that help form a solid identiy of any Latin rite Orthodox christian concerning sacred art as it was before and shortly after the schism, which is I think very much how it ought to be today.

No, statues were not used in the west before the schism. Never, ever, ever - ever. This is a popular and important question.

The west did not develop a great popularity with panel icons, they were known but less common, moreso in italy than other regions, they venerated relics and wall frescos instead. Panel icons became very popular after the crusader period began, partly from contact with the east, this popularily with them is what led the humanist individualist secular art we find it art museums today to exist. For by the year 1280 the traditional panel icons were quickly being replaced by the new form of duccio, giotto and their students which by the 14th c wiped away much of the past forever. The influence to change into the humanist style was a mixture of Norman/french influence (who had conquered much of italy under the Hautville line, Roger I and Roger II of Sicily, came from france) and local italian influence stimulated by their own universities such as palermo and bologna. The attitude toward imagery was always somewhat different from the east.

However numerous examples of more traditional iconography survived in italy until the 16th c. however by that time and since giotto's time they were being derided as rustic village art less worthy of the aristocracies money to adorn any churches or shrines with.

Statues in terms of devotional objects, to be seen as a substitute for flat panel icons in the west evolved from reliquaries that contained relics and were made in the shape of the saint that they came from. Gradually they stopped putting relics in them, and stopped covering them with gold leaf. Than with the humanistic influence of late 12th c. and 13th c. Paris (the center of socalled "gothic' ethos) they gained lifelife paint over them. Thus the statue was born.

By the 14th century the 3 dimensional life life coloured statues are everywhere! Although statues became popular a bit later in italy, which maintained primacy of fresco and bas relief longer than in france and longer than in germany, which by than was under more french influence (before 13th c. more italian influence).

Statues as far as architectural decoration is a different subject. The book to read for that is "Romanesque Sculpture:The Revival of Monumental Stone Sculpture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries" by Millard Hearn . This covers the architectural statuary revival on 13th c. french churches as well, which barely existed in the 12th c. before 1180 AD. It very clearly relates and shows in pictures the evolution from bas relief to free standing between 1090-1200 AD.

No question to my mind, if Italy had been left to it's own devices it would have largely remained in more harmony with the Orthodox east, being culturally more similar to Greece. France primarily artistically and eventually germany secondarily and moreso politically/theologically were the main culprits in terms of unorthodox art and architectural elements

« Last Edit: June 22, 2012, 01:57:24 AM by Christopher McAvoy »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

By the end of the 19th century, l'Art Saint-Sulpice became the international style of Catholic church art. From Ireland to Mexico to India or the United States, local art was replaced by goods either imported from France or copied from French standards. In the United States, the area around Barclay Street in Manhattan housed import firms that dealt with the French-produced religious arts and companies that made Catholic devotional goods.

It would be said [in the future] that the artists [of the early 20th century] had ceded their posts to the merchants; it would seem that the sculptor and the goldsmith had no concern for making a beautiful object to inspire piety, but rather for making an industrial model able to be multiplied by the dozen. The noble carving of marble and wood had been laid aside before the invasion of common plaster. Lamps and candlesticks, and (infinitely sadder) chalices and ciboria were many times considered as mere hardware. And in this inundation of so many profane and vulgar objects, as wretched in form as in material, it would be useless to look for any sign of religious inspiration or even a recollection of the respect deserved by the noble destiny for which they were forged: honor to the House of God and participation in the most august sacrifice.... Everyone who desires to find in the temple surroundings conducive to the elevation of the spirit must condemn repeatedly the profanity of modern religious art.

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

I should clarify that statues (unless one counts bas relief) were not used liturgically before the late middle ages (1100s at the earliest).

However, there outside of liturgy and churches, privately, in the early christian period before the year 400, there are examples of one statue alone being used: that is the statue of "Christ the Good Shepherd.Some are more bas relief others more free standing.

Here are several examples of "Christ the Good Shepherd" from the 200's to 300's:

However this occured only because greco-roman pagan culture was continueing to be christianized at that time, a true fully christian sacred art had yet to fully develop until after Christianity was legalized.

This is why it is impossible to use the "early christian church" pre-constantinian times as a complete model for today, being illegal it had many inconsistencies and flaws that were subsequently smoothed over. The protestants and pseudo-protestant modernists within roman catholicism (the "neo-catechumenal way" for example) who are obsessed with a vision of early christian judaizer utopia are never going to find their holy grail.

One further book to recommend to help explain and give early examples explaining relationship between panel icons and the subsequent change into humanist style is the most excellent book:

The Origins of Florentine Painting, 1100-1270 (Corpus of Florentine Painting) by Miklós Boskovits

At 800 pages this is a monument to medieval latin rite iconography which is as harmonious with it's eastern counter part and as inspiring as you will ever find. Despite the title, many of the examples in the book are in fact from throughout Italy, not specifically florence.

« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 08:56:38 PM by Christopher McAvoy »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

In the late 19th and earlier 20th century, many benedictines in the "Liturgical Movement" amongst Roman Catholics were well aware that statuary was a late development, thus they intentionally designed many of their Abbey Churches to be more harmonious with the earlier medieval tradition.

This one from germany and another from missouri, USA are prime examplse to illustrate this point.

Chapel of the Benedictine Sisters of Perpetual Adoration, Clyde, Missouri

(None of these are as purely historical as could be when examined closely one still finds the later humanistic element , but the general appearance and atmosphere is certainly heading in the "orthodox" direction.

« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 09:36:57 PM by Christopher McAvoy »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

A couple of articles on statues in Orthodoxy. The first one is from a Catholic website, but contains quotes and info from an Orthodox Bishop. The second is linked in the first, and is from an Orthodox newsletter.

Wow! I wouldn't have thought such a beautiful monastery existed in Missouri.

Nice.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

Wow! I wouldn't have thought such a beautiful monastery existed in Missouri.

Nice.

There are two right across from each other actually. The Benedictine Sisters, pictured above, but also the Benedictine Monks of Conception Abbey. Their monastery is quite lovely as well. http://www.conceptionabbey.org/basilica

A couple of articles on statues in Orthodoxy. The first one is from a Catholic website, but contains quotes and info from an Orthodox Bishop. The second is linked in the first, and is from an Orthodox newsletter.

The first article answers no questions, despite its title; the second is nothing more than historical revisionism with several basic errors thrown in. For instance, it states that the word eikona refers to both two- and three-dimensional images. Patently false, as anyone who knows Greek can easily point out.

Actually statues, are by no means forbidden in Orthodoxy and were always a regular partof the decorative and devotional furnishing of the sacred space, the church interior.

That they were forbidden in an absolute sense is probably true, but beside the point. Bishop Jerome has I think said that they were not forbidden, though he does not actively encourage their usage.Rather it may be a situation of dispensation and economy in rare individual situations.

But the fact remains that 3D statuary were never ever part of any established tradition in the latin west or greek/aramaic/slavonic east.

Quote

Professor Sergios Verkhovskoi, the conservative professor of dogmatics at St. Vladimir’s Seminaryforthrightly condemns as heretical anyone who declares statues as unOrthodox or in any way canonically inferior to paintings.

Canonically inferior? what does that mean? If I understand him correctly this is a legalistic perspective that this professor has which is not in and of itself wrong.I do not deny that people who pray in front of statues in Roman Catholicism (or for that matter certain AWRV churches) are wrong.I would also never deny that the miracles connected to 3D statues in the Roman Catholic church are real.

But I do believe with all my heart and soul that they are in a "general aesthetic" traditional, and theological sense inferior.

Quote

The famous Spanish Madonna, Our Lady of Montserrat, is a Byzantine statue as are many ancient examples in southern France

This is patently false and shows vast ignorance of the medieval latin west. This reminds me of a person who assumes that every single fresco and panel painting from before the year 1200 found in the west that has commonality with those of the east must automatically have been painted by traveling greek masters and their ateliers. It is a failure to realize that the Latin west had an artistic tradition which was profoundly similar to that of the east, yet entirely indigenous and entirely unique and distinctive.

People fail to understand that the Church before 1200 was much more united in it's culture at all levels. This is why many basic elements of that time period from all the nations bordering the mediterranean which are christian seem more similar to each other than they do now.

The article mixes fact with fiction to manipulate and contort the realities of history.No scholar in the world would accept that article as wholly accurate.

The carvings in russia that are statues were private devotional items and not used inside churches in the way that they came to be in the latin west after the year 1200. It is to compare apples and oranges.

Frankly, David Clayton the contributor to that post on the New Liturgical Movement has an agenda to distort the reality of statues in the latin west and put them at a level equal to the more historic first millenium tradition of images. I think that he is attempting to promote a view of history that never existed. I like Mr. Clayton very much but his promotion of statues as equal to images is very annoying.

With all due respect to Roman Catholics of which many of my family happen to be.It is as if many Roman Catholics have a guilt complex to deny the reality of history to demand justify their practice by using weasel words to promote a view history that never existed. This is why there is a value to studying and knowing their own history.One can remain a traditional Roman Catholic and still admit that statues are an innovation that did not exist at all in churches before the late 1100's.

The practice of statues is not evil but it is an innovation that is new to the church and originated and developed entirely in the former germanic barbarian lands and had very little connection, promotion or interest in the historic "latin regions" of the Roman empire, such as Italy, where we see that frescos and panel paintings continued to be more popular, as they should be, until comparatively recently.

« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 08:08:24 PM by Christopher McAvoy »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

Correction to above sentences, I left out there word "not" in three important sentences. Forgive me.

Quote

That they (statues) were not forbidden in an absolute sense is probably true, but beside the point.

I do not deny that people who pray in front of statues in Roman Catholicism (or for that matter certain AWRV churches) are not wrong. (I think from the perspective of those raised with modern day custom and devotional practice it is fine, though not ideal for any church. Not wrong, but not ideal either. Ideals in these areas of sacred art are obviously forced to be compromised according to cultural developments and poor church leadership toward traditional sacred art etc.)

I would also never deny that the miracles connected to 3D statues in the Roman Catholic church not are real. (I think they are usually are real, I have no issues being Orthodox in belief and saying this.)

« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 03:58:54 AM by Christopher McAvoy »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

Once again: "The book to read for that is "Romanesque Sculpture:The Revival of Monumental Stone Sculpture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries" by Millard Hearn"

"Low relief" (bas relief) was the norm for latin rite tympanum before 1150 AD and generally continued to be until sometime in 1200's. At what date the higher form of relief came to be accepted varied between each nation, there was not a universal date, but for the most part northern france (university of paris) and the normans led the way in this innovation.

(perhaps my favourite of them).Tympanum and door lintel on the north side of the narthex, c. 1150, Stone, Saint-Fortunat Abbey, Charlieu

Sainte-Foy benedictine church abbeyThe tympanum of the Last Judgment of the 12th century is regarded as a major work of the Romanesque art.The 6.70 m length curve for 3.60 m in height shelters 124 characters, remarkably preserved, inspired of the Gospel according to Saint-Matthieu.

Location :Colegiate de San Isidoro, León, Espana. Date: 1100'sByzantine type relief as found in the caucausus nation of Georgia:

« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 08:33:58 PM by Christopher McAvoy »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

Once again: "The book to read for that is "Romanesque Sculpture:The Revival of Monumental Stone Sculpture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries" by Millard Hearn"

I'm quite familiar with Romanesque sculpture. I've had tons of lectures on them in university, but largely devoid of ecclesiastical context.

Quote

(perhaps my favourite of them).Tympanum and door lintel on the north side of the narthex, c. 1150, Stone, Saint-Fortunat Abbey, Charlieu

Isn't that sheep haut-relief?

The movement from bas-relief to haut-relief was indeed quite gradual, and it is there that my concerns lie. None of it is exactly freestanding, fully 3D. This is also long before the sculpture become humanistic and sensual. And I know that these are not suitable for veneration, but I can't really imagine people venerating through bas-reliefs on capitals either. Say, if miraculously, the Roman Church acknowledges its errors, and reunites with the Orthodox Church, what about the church buildings that have haut-relief and freestanding sculpture?

Say, if miraculously, the Roman Church acknowledges its errors, and reunites with the Orthodox Church, what about the church buildings that have haut-relief and freestanding sculpture?

Should that theoretically occur, my guess is that the haut relief /freestanding sculpture of all sorts that is historical would largely remain in tact. My guess is that there would be less popular to use in the future. That's really hard to guess isnt it?

Realistically I dont know that any of us would really expect the entire Roman Catholic Church to give up humanistic statuary and paintings in their sacred art. The best one can hope for is that future church/temple buildings (especially a many post-vatican II era churches borderline on iconoclasm) would introduce more of their pre-1200 type of sacred art.Dispensation and relaxation would be the name of the game , like it or not.

As for the western rite churches where they have no church buildings, they can I think be held to a higher standard, as they have yet to have historic gothic cathedrals in their possession!

I'm sure most of us also know that many older church buildings in Eastern mediterranean and Europe have some humanistic elements in their iconostasis for examples. The Russian empire flirted with western art and much of it remains in tact now as it was in the 19th c.

I think that the Church is not too strict in this matter.

For all the heretical leaning views Mr. Francisco "Kiko" Arguello has had, I was intrigued by his trying to reconfigure the apse of a famous Cathedral in Spain into a more byzantine direction. Arguello's iconography does not tend to strictly maintain orthodox traditions, as one would expect of one of his theological views, but he usually works within it. Perhaps some of his artistic direction does suggest signs of the future. His protestant leaning "neo-catechumenal way" movement has been responsible for disseminating byzantine art throughout the post 1970 Roman Catholic Church.

« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 05:56:01 PM by Christopher McAvoy »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

Say, if miraculously, the Roman Church acknowledges its errors, and reunites with the Orthodox Church, what about the church buildings that have haut-relief and freestanding sculpture?

Should that theoretically occur, my guess is that the haut relief /freestanding sculpture of all sorts that is historical would largely remain in tact. My guess is that there would be less popular to use in the future. That's really hard to guess isnt it?

Realistically I dont know that any of us would really expect the entire Roman Catholic Church to give up humanistic statuary and paintings in their sacred art. The best one can hope for is that future church/temple buildings (especially a many post-vatican II era churches borderline on iconoclasm) would introduce more of their pre-1200 type of sacred art.Dispensation and relaxation would be the name of the game , like it or not.

As for the western rite churches where they have no church buildings, they can I think be held to a higher standard, as they have yet to have historic gothic cathedrals in their possession!

I'm sure most of us also know that many older church buildings in Eastern mediterranean and Europe have some humanistic elements in their iconostasis for examples. The Russian empire flirted with western art and much of it remains in tact now as it was in the 19th c.

For all the heretical leaning views Mr. Francisco "Kiko" Arguello has had, I was intrigued by his trying to reconfigure the apse of a famous Cathedral in Spain into a more byzantine direction. Arguello's iconography does not tend to strictly maintain orthodox traditions, as one would expect of one of his theological views, but he usually works within it. Perhaps some of his artistic direction does suggest signs of the future. His protestant leaning "neo-catechumenal way" movement has been responsible for disseminating byzantine art throughout the post 1970 Roman Catholic Church.

Ah yes, the Almudena Cathedral. It's a quite bizarre thing, with a gothic revival interior and a neoclassical exterior.

In the low countries, both the progressive and traditionalist elements of the Roman Catholic Church have a soft spot for Orthodoxy. Quite a lot of our abbeys offer courses in painting icons, they're very popular and seem to be booming business. Romanesque art is being more appreciated, but not by catholic priests. Churches being redecorated today means modernistic furniture and no imagery (perhaps an icon set on a chair, at best).

But there's some interesting developments worldwide. Are you familiar with the Clear Creek Abbey in Oklahoma? It's getting a Romanesque tympanum:The capitals are already completed.

Do you have any knowledge of Western Orthodox communites building new churches?

In the low countries, both the progressive and traditionalist elements of the Roman Catholic Church have a soft spot for Orthodoxy. Quite a lot of our abbeys offer courses in painting icons, they're very popular and seem to be booming business. Romanesque art is being more appreciated, but not by catholic priests. Churches being redecorated today means modernistic furniture and no imagery (perhaps an icon set on a chair, at best).

But there's some interesting developments worldwide. Are you familiar with the Clear Creek Abbey in Oklahoma? It's getting a Romanesque

There is a strange irony in the interest in traditional iconography within the Roman Catholic Church. At one point I assumed that respect for sacred art of that we see tended to imply a person who equally respected the sacred art that we hear.

I learned that this is not at all true. I remember one of the priests, Fr John Holliday, who took one of the icon classes, to paint a Christ pantokrator. He seemed very happy with the image and even blessed it, but when it came to introducing english language plainchant chant into his mass (which his assistant priest had been allowing) he had quite the fit and absolutely refused it saying "this has no place in the contemporary church". This is the paradox with the RC they often will flirt with some of the traditional sacred arts, but these days it is rarer for them to go all the way into a full embrace of traditional sacred art and music. It is many times in my opinion rather an illusionary immature love affair. Or else it must be that some politics in the church prevents it. It's beyond my understanding, frankly. It is not too different from the old hippies that would dabble with one "new age" practice and another moving and mixing about with them freely and indiscrimanantly. None of this has to be this way and I hope in time these tendencies disappear.

Yes, I am familiar with Clear Creek Abbey it is a very fine role model for traditional Latin rite Roman Catholicism and we might say orthodox praxis. For some time I had attended mass at very similar priory when I was in communion with Rome and it was uplifting for the soul. They must be viewed as the future direction of the RC Church, otherwise ... they will probably have more chaos.

« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 07:04:03 PM by Christopher McAvoy »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

There is a strange irony in the interest in traditional iconography within the Roman Catholic Church. At one point I assumed that respect for sacred art of that we see tended to imply a person who equally respected the sacred art that we hear.

I learned that this is not at all true. I remember one of the priests, Fr John Holliday, who took one of the icon classes, to paint a Christ pantokrator. He seemed very happy with the image and even blessed it, but when it came to introducing english language plainchant chant into his mass (which his assistant priest had been allowing) he had quite the fit and absolutely refused it saying "this has no place in the contemporary church". This is the paradox with the RC they often will flirt with some of the traditional sacred arts, but these days it is rarer for them to go all the way into a full embrace of traditional sacred art and music. It is many times in my opinion rather an illusionary immature love affair. Or else it must be that some politics in the church prevents it. It's beyond my understanding, frankly. It is not too different from the old hippies that would dabble with one "new age" practice and another moving and mixing about with them freely and indiscrimanantly. None of this has to be this way and I hope in time these tendencies disappear.

I think it's some kind of misguided exoticism. The 'progressives' honestly believe that they are close to the early Christians, and seem to think that they are close to the Orthodox as well. I've actually heard a priest exclaim that "the pope should ordain women like the orthodox do". Early christian saints, especially the church fathers, are popular as names for projects in parishes. A distorted translation of the Didaché circulates here. A byzantine mass is organized monthly (with female altar servers and chorists), and many ecumenical activities with the orthodox are organized. Yet these same priests and bishops still vandalize their churches, do not even follow the "Novus Ordo rites", and organize petitions to allow laity the celebrate the liturgy.

Yes, I am familiar with Clear Creek Abbey it is a very fine role model for traditional Latin rite Roman Catholicism and we might say orthodox praxis. For some time I had attended mass at very similar priory when I was in communion with Rome and it was uplifting for the soul. They must be viewed as the future direction of the RC Church, otherwise ... they will probably have more chaos.

Well, such communities will grow, but the Roman Catholic Church as a whole... doubt it. The new pope couldn't care less for orthopraxis, for example.

I also see Fr. Aidan is promoting post-romanesque art (and freestanding sculpture on that rood screen).

I doubt that Fr. Aidan was intending to promote the freestanding sculpture on that rood screen. I think it was more the concept of it in general than the all the details of that particular screen.

The Rood screen concept is a bit controversial. Some could see it as an unnecessary byzantinization.There is not that much evidence to suggest a rood screen was used until the later middle ages around the choir/apse area in the way some of the WR orthodox parishes currently use them. For the most part that form of screen existed moreso after 1200 than before it.The basic long bar with a cross atop it does have earlier precedence as a support for the walls, but the borderline near iconostasis type with doors and panels that some prefer is definitely a late development.

the closest thing we have is tripartite transepts in pre-romanesque churches.

« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 07:47:58 PM by Christopher McAvoy »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

The Rood screen concept is a bit controversial. Some could see it as an unnecessary byzantinization.There is not that much evidence to suggest a rood screen was used until the later middle ages around the choir/apse area in the way some of the WR orthodox parishes currently use them. For the most part that form of screen existed moreso after 1200 than before it.The basic long bar with a cross atop it does have earlier precedence as a support for the walls, but the borderline near iconostasis type with doors and panels that some prefer is definitely a late development.

I'd say the templon, its "predecessor", is the byzantinization (clearly in name and form). In the East, the templon evolved into the iconostasis, and in the west it merged with the rood. But it's certainly not necessary for a good church building.

As I read through this thread on statues, I pray that in the end, the western rite is authentic in its praxis and honest with respect to its rich heritage- liturgical, spirituality, art, prayer and in piety.

I, like many North American Eastern Orthodox, am a descendant of converted Greek Catholics. During the three centuries my ancestors were subject to the Unia, my ancestors, their clergy and bishops willingly accepted many westernizations in the mistaken belief (and hope) that would make them better " Catholics" in the eyes of the Latin church.

As we know from history, St.Alexis Toth and thousands of good,pious faithful learned a bitter lesson that their actions were in vain. More than a century later, after decades of bitter fruit and further division and disenchantment, most of those westernizations/Latinizations have finally been finally erased from those who became Orthodox and to a large extent from those who remain in union with Rome following Vatican 2.

Please work together with open hearts and minds in your journeys to, and within Orthodoxy, and don't repeat the mistakes of the past in the process.

As I read through this thread on statues, I pray that in the end, the western rite is authentic in its praxis and honest with respect to its rich heritage- liturgical, spirituality, art, prayer and in piety.

I agree. The issue, I believe, is that some want to be faithful to the rich heritage up to a certain point (usually 1054, and usually tradition as they imagine it to be), and others want to be faithful to the tradition as a whole, acknowledging that there is much indeed that is life-giving, authentic, rich, in "post-Schism" times as well.

In the East, the templon evolved into the iconostasis, and in the west it merged with the rood. But it's certainly not necessary for a good church building.

I am unaware of the templon being widespread or having existence in latin west, beyond one or two isolated examples in dalmatia (croatia) or italy I have not seen any. This is the first time I have heard of it merging with the rood. Perhaps you may be correct, what you say sounds feasable. Do you have any book that documents this? I'd like to read about it.

The link that "ROCORWRVUK" posts of the statue of "Our Saviour in prison" does appear to have been used in a russian orthodox church in a somewhat similar manner as maybe used in roman catholic church. That is very interesting! I still suspect that it is a later development, but it does suggest that a degree of relaxation on the issue is acceptable. It's one thing to have ideals, it's another thing to be pragmatic...

« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 05:59:11 PM by Christopher McAvoy »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

In the East, the templon evolved into the iconostasis, and in the west it merged with the rood. But it's certainly not necessary for a good church building.

I am unaware of the templon being widespread or having existence in latin west, beyond one or two isolated examples in dalmatia (croatia) or italy I have not seen any. This is the first time I have heard of it merging with the rood. Perhaps you may be correct, what you say sounds feasable. Do you have any book that documents this? I'd like to read about it.

The link that "ROCORWRVUK" posts of the statue of "Our Saviour in prison" does appear to have been used in a russian orthodox church in a somewhat similar manner as maybe used in roman catholic church. That is very interesting! I still suspect that it is a later development, but it does suggest that a degree of relaxation on the issue is acceptable. It's one thing to have ideals, it's another thing to be pragmatic...

A few scattered anomalies do not make a tradition. The statues of Sts Peter and Paul are straight out of RC religious art, right down to the haloes, and probably came from an RC church.

It is significant to note that the overwhelming westernizing effect on Orthodox art was not the wholesale introduction of statues for veneration, but the supplanting of traditional iconography for naturalistic paintings.

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

There is very, very little surviving of pre-1000 sculpture of any kind, but there are some freestanding examples, such as the Gero Cross, which dates from the 900s. (Ignore the rayant background, which is much more recent.) It is made of wood, as one might assume a lot of such early work was.

What it comes down to is that we really don't know that much about such sculpture. It's not unreasonable to guess, though, that three dimensional roods weren't unknown and that the Gero Cross isn't a fluke. And the rood is one of the exceptions to the western rule that the ornament doesn't play a role in the liturgy. It's possible that the multiplication of statuary begins in the high medieval period, but the truth is, we don't really know.

Our Lady of Einsiedeln and Our Lady of Walsingham are two pre-schism statues. That is not at all to say that statues were not in the minority before the schism. Indeed, there was much more iconography. The Gothic period and Cistercian desire for artistic simplicity ended the tradition of Romanesque iconography by and large.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Our Lady of Einsiedeln and Our Lady of Walsingham are two pre-schism statues.

The visions at Walsingham only started in the 1060s, and if I understand correctly the current image is much later, though it possibly depends in the end on a medieval prototype. From what I understand Einsiedeln's current image dates from the 1400s.